Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 10:56, John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: Inside, there are three “retarding basins” (numbered 1, 2 & 3), with #1 > having with a large traditional reservoir, parks, golf course, and sports > grounds inside. > There is more to the system than that.

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 22:10, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Meanwhile the osmcha example appears to be a 5 way roundabout-type > junction, but I don't have the clarity in that aerial view to tell if it's > traversable or not. > I went to the osmcha example and opened it in iD with Bing imagery. It lo

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 14:35, Jez Nicholson wrote: > AFAIK the traffic regulations are: > 1. You should *avoid* doing a U-turn at a mini roundabout because there > isn't much room to turn in, and people might not be expecting it. You are > still allowed to do so. > 2. *only* drivers of long/large

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 13:59, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 23 Oct 2019, 14:54 by rich...@systemed.net: > > > It is, pretty much. Plus a few in places heavily influenced by British > practice (Ireland and Hong Kong), and also France as Philip says. > > And in Poland, though without special > legal

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 13:35, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > The point is that people (as i have sent in the example) currently see > the only difference to be that a mini_roundabout can be traversed in the > center. No, they say that is ONE of the defining characteristics. They have also pointed y

Re: [Tagging] Hunting stands, bird and wildlife hides

On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 15:40, Ilya Zverev wrote: > I understand the reasoning, but I don’t see how can I follow the “truth on > the ground” principle. Are there any guidelines on choosing the correct > tag? For some reason people don’t write its purpose on a side. > The purpose may not be writte

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 14:29, Philip Barnes wrote: > But the British English technical/legal term is footway, which has also > found its way into OSM. > The Highway Code uses both pavement and footway. There's probably some subtle legal distinction. > > And sorry Paul, I cannot remember the We

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > while I am not, I’m pretty sure the British term is pavement, not sidewalk Yes. It's as idiotic as us Brits calling underpants "pants" because the sidewalk is paved but the road is also paved so both are pavements. But that's what

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 10:06, Valor Naram via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Specifications I did not include: > [...] Those all look useful to me. If you object to any specific one of them, say so in the proposal and what your objection is. If you wanted to simplify the wiki

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 00:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > > For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not > > be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these > > countries very rarely make phon

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:43, Vɑdɪm wrote: > I think you guys forgot one thing: the OSM is not specifically about UK, > Australia or any other country. It's a global map. > I didn't forget that. I'm pretty sure some of the others didn't forget that either. > > In your region you may perhaps yo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 10:46, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > I think it's no more vague than some many other tags in OSM. > > For example have a look at > > leisure=fishing > For most rivers in the UK, there are legalities around fishing rights. There is often signage. There may be maps by angling association

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 19:21, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > > You'd be better off tagging places where sunbathing is explicitly > banned. Much more quantifiable, Much more likely to be designated with a > sign. > +0.5 Explicit signage or published regulations permitting or prohibiting. Anything e

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 19:17, François Lacombe wrote: > > I don't understand what do you mean exactly > Voting options are a template, and not visible on source > Look at the votes so far. The first vote is out of position and looks like this: {{vote|yes}} --Eric B.

Re: [Tagging] Must/Should and Lawyering - Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 17:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Florian Lohoff : > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node >> "Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a >> node (for example, a road junction)" >> > > altitude? >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:39, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > Paul Allen wrote > > The presence or absences of sunshades is not a reliable indicator. > > Did I say the opposite? > > Yes, you said this earlier in the thread: There is no any requirement for sunshades in the proposal. Alb

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:04, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > Perhaps that's question of a definition. Please have a look at 3 pictures > posted here earlier and let me know what do you think of them. > To what end? You've found pictures of sunbathing areas with sunshades. Others have found pictures of sunba

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 13:18, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > Blimey I didn't say sunshades == sunbathing. > > No, you didn't. What you said was: There is no any requirement for sunshades in the proposal. Albeit I think > they could be used as one of the indicators. > People keep trying to get through to you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 14:16, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > There is no any requirement for sunshades in the proposal. Good. > Albeit I think they could be used as one of the indicators. > Yeah, in the same way that a building is an indicator of an outdoor running track and a railway line is an indicator

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 09:39, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Funfact, in Rome there is one road, "Via Trionfale", > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Trionfale which has housenumbers > (contrary to the rest of the city) that indicate the distance from the > capitol hill measured at the axxis of th

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > In Italy the only places that get the amenity=pub tags, are Irish or > British pubs (i.e. places that call themselves with English names and > usually carrying "pub" in the name, and typically selling British/Irish > beer and burgers / c

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: In Australia sunshades are to keep people out of the sun, not for > 'sunbathing'. > +1 Actually, it's true of the rest of the world, too. You cannot sunbathe under a sunshade. Therefore sunshades are NOT indicative that an area i

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 00:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > the way we are dealing with these distinctions of eating and drinking > places is mostly main tags, and subtags only for subtleties. A tiki bar > could get amenity=bar, or maybe I’m misguided (I’m not familiar with the > kind of place)?

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 20:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > yes , of course, sorry for stepping on your toes, I was being sarcastic to > better make the point, but I am aware that there is some use for this (even > around here it may occur that a house has a name but not a number). > Not normall

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 22:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: not to speak about addr:housenumber and addr:housename (the latter is > mostly useless > In some areas of the UK I've lived, all houses have numbers and a few also have names (which are viewed by many as an affectation). In rural districts

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 20:55, Tobias Zwick wrote: > How about porters_lodge, it's more general. It would cover the small > building at the entrance of outdoor pools where you buy the tickets, same > for other outdoor venues, the booth at the entrance of company/factory > grounds, the guard booth a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 20:35, Sven Geggus wrote: > > I fully agree with this. In opencampingmap POI database I currently do a > replacement of the following tags during database import: > > booking -> reservation > contact:phone -> phone > contact:fax -> fax > contact:website -> website > contact

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

7;s not how you navigate if you have a map. Especially if the map display is capable of using GPS to show your current position. > > @Paul Allen keep calm > I am calm. Very calm. It's possible to strongly disagree with somebody whilst remaining perfectly calm. -- Paul

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 14:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: this is also a milestone in OSM: historic=milestone > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmilestone > There aren't that many milestones (made of stone, marked in miles) around here but all of those I'm aware of are historic a

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:26, santamariense wrote: > > > that you should not use the term "milestone" but something like > > addr:distance or > > addr:road_marker or whatever, because there are no milestones > > addr:road_marker seems to be appropriated Or something with similar meaning. Place

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 03:40, Jorge Aguirre wrote: > > In all fairness, I think it should not be as difficult to find a good way > to facilitate entering a complementary address tag, one that is very much > needed in our part of the world - one which applies to and needed in most > of the world ac

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 19:40, Jorge Aguirre wrote: The addresses that utilize ‘Km’ as part of the actual address are always > related to a specific 'highway:milestone’ on that particular highway. For > instance, the address for the Hilton Guatemala Vista Real Hotel in > Guatemala - as it appears o

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 15:46, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The issue of whether enough people know a name to make it 'truly' a > name for OSM is, and will always be, a judgment call at the low end. I > doubt we'll ever find a bright line. There's a fuzzy line somewhere > between the Pauls and the Catski

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 14:45, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary, > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:39 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed re

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 13:34, santamariense wrote: > > I am not sure about to keep "Km". It might be understandable by the > key 'addr:milestone' itself. It might. OSM uses highway=milestone to mean a road marker in general, rather than a traditional milestone (which was a stone with distances

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 12:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: usually people will go by the name I think, if it is called "cathedral" > they will reasonably think it is a cathedral... > Many people, if they see the word cathedral on a map, will be looking for a building something like https://commons.

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I have proposed a long time ago a tag religious_rank which was thought for > example as a modifier for places of worship and monsteries. It’s not > particularly popular, but it could be suitable for finer distinctions: > https://taginfo

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 30/9/19 9:24 pm, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led > > me there. > > It in many places but this one will do: > > https://maps.nls.uk/os

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 08:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 27. Sep 2019, at 13:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Another counter-argument: we don't have any tag indicating residential > usage other > > than building=house > > we do, there are te

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > the point of tagging amenity and building independently is to distinguish > between structure and use/service > Some of us think that. Others think that building=yes|no are the only options. > > > Counter-argument: Christian > > plac

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary, That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the wikipedia page. Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought that was a semi-official designation. I

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Tomas Straupis wrote: > 2019-09-30, pr, 10:35 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė: > > > IMHO this would represent just a small minority of people thinking so. > > Generally verifiability would be satisfied if you could go in the area > > and ask the people, there is no requi

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 18:25, Jan Michel wrote: > On 29.09.19 17:07, Paul Allen wrote: > > > There are people who are VERY interested in these things. People who > > want to know where Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are. > > Well... There is no docume

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 15:52, Valor Naram via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: Be sure that almost no data user will evaluate these tags > Really? There are people who are VERY interested in these things. People who want to know where Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, et

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 00:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/09/19 21:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 11:02, Marc Gemis wrote: > > so disused:amenity=pub ; building=pub (it looks like a pub); >> building:use=house (or is it :usage?) >&

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 16:36, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > 27 Sep 2019, 15:22 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 13:46, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > 27 Sep 2019, 13:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > The status for that is "in use," which makes it a little questionable. > > Why?

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 13:46, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 27 Sep 2019, 13:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > we don't have any tag indicating residential usage other > than building=house > > building:use=residential? > The status for that is "in use," which makes it a little questionable. It also ra

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 11:02, Marc Gemis wrote: so disused:amenity=pub ; building=pub (it looks like a pub); > building:use=house (or is it :usage?) > Erm, I can't think of any pub I've ever been in or past that was in a building that could be described as looking like a pub. All but three or f

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 07:28, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Pleased to see that Bessie's in the Gwaun Valley is still the same as ever > though! > You're cursed! Stay away from pubs anywhere near me! Bessie's has only just re-opened. https://www.tivysideadvertiser.co.uk/news/17784770.pembrokesh

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 19:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > One question is should they be rendered, and most > > people seem to agree that they should. Should the buildings be tagged > as disused? So > > the wiki implies. If they should be tagged (in some way) as disused, > then how? > >

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:53, Markus wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:43 Martin Koppenhoefer, > wrote: > >> an unused building remains a building, hence the building=* tag should be >> kept. >> > > All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are > you saying that we shoul

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:14, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20&lat=52.0802094&lon=-4.660442 > > Works for me. That works. Makes it explicit for somebody who goes to a pub guide website (there are many), spots this one then looks at OSM to find i

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:10, Markus wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 15:19 Paul Allen, wrote: > >> Using disused=yes is correct and truthful. Using disused:foo=bar is ALSO >> correct and truthful. >> Both are documented as valid ways of tagging disused objects. >> &

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Paul Allen wrote: > > BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is > > a pub would be of interest to some mappers. > > Oh, has that closed? Two or three years ago. The Eagle nearby

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:18, Simon Poole wrote: > OpenStreetMap is a project that produces open data. "open" implies > everybody being allowed to use the data in any way they see fit, including > rendering disused facilities in green with pink stripes. > Ah, Open Anarchic Map. Where anything co

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 01:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: In Australia most, if not all, landlines will not process SMS calls. They > may not take video calls, etc. > By default, the same is true of landlines in the UK. But BT (and possibly) others offer text services with landlines: ht

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 00:53, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: disused:*=* means it cannot presently be used for its intended purpose. > That does not mean it does not exist. > Correct. How renders chose to display that is up to them. > Also correct (sadly). But the tagging is correct and

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 19:54, Philip Barnes wrote: > In the UK it is easy to tell a mobile number, I would not be happy getting > a builder who only has a mobile number. It suggests lack of permanent > location. > Or a one-man-and-a-dog operation and he's not managed to train the dog to answer t

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 18:08, Valor Naram wrote: > So you suggest `phone:international` and `phone` beside of the other keys > `phone:press`, `phone:night`, `phone:emergency`? > Every time somebody suggest that we don't need all the phone variants that can be found in the wild, you pop up interp

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 17:00, Valor Naram wrote: > We should not talk any longer about charging plans (which provider and > when will apply different charges to whom) because we're difting off --> > going Off-Topic. > It is very much on topic because it is the basis of whether or not there is an

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 16:11, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2019-09-25 16:08, Paul Allen wrote: > > In the UK, people can tell that from the area code. > > > What about the cases where calls to customers on the same provider are > free? In general you have no way of knowing who

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 14:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: E.g. an abandoned:building is probably more a ruin than a building, while a > disused building is still a building. > Either way, the building is still visible and can be used for navigation purposes. If you add disused=yes or abandoned=y

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 14:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: right, you might be charged differently according to your plan / the kind > of device you are calling from. There may be also more distinctions (e.g. > local numbers cheaper), > Yep. All those things and more. Scott Adams (the Dilbert c

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I don't see the problem, can you explain? > [Note: some simplifications ahead. Broadly true but there are many exceptions in reality.] In the UK, calling rom landlines, calls to mobile numbers are more expensive than calls to landlin

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 15:12, websi...@posteo.de wrote: In my eyes even contact:website=* is not necessarily illogical as many > websites provide means to get in contact with the POI. > Assuming you mean a contact form, as opposed to a web page giving phone number, e-mail address, and maybe phys

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:51, Volker Schmidt wrote: > we may have to byte the bullet and allow semicolon-separated values for > landuse. > +1 Specific word combinations are not a good solution > +1 -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstree

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:47, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Right. Silvopasture combines trees used for forestry with grass for > grazing. > >From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture: Silvopasture is compatible with fruit, nut, and timber production. Grazing can serve a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 08:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >: > >> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> >> I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for m

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow orchards. A > meadow orchard is specifically low density/sparse trees, while silvopasture > indicates a forest/woodland, i.e. denser tree cover. > Really? I don't see anything in t

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 19:32, Markus wrote: > > AFAIK, silvopasture describes a forest that is also used for grazing > livestock. > >From the wikipedia article on silvopasture: "Silvopasture is compatible with fruit, nut, and timber production." -- Paul

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 19:07, Markus wrote: > > I dislike both landuse=meadow + meadow=meadow_orchard and > landuse=orchard + orchard=meadow_orchard because they imply a primary > usage (meadow or orchard respectively), which i think is impossible to > determine. Therefore i prefer landuse=meadow

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 15:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: your government also seems to include them: > > @Paul From a quick search it seems these specific rules exist in the uk as > well, see here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs > signs giving orders-> No buses (over 8

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 11:59, Jo wrote: > In my own city we have an electric train like bus that has a few stops and > is specifically meant for tourists. Not double decker with an open roof and > it's slow, but OK. It has an itinerary and dedicated hop on/hop off stops. > I would like to be able

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 10:28, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > According to Wikipedia:en : > " A *bus* (contracted from *omnibus*,[1] > with variants > *multibus*, *motorbus*, *autobus*, etc.) is a road vehicle > <

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 00:09, marc marc wrote: > Le 18.09.19 à 01:02, Paul Allen a écrit : > > Those machines are generally available for use only by people > > staying on the site (they could accept anyone, but usually do not). How > > are you going > > to tag

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 23:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I am honestly confused by the discussions about types and features of > buses. > Join the club. :) Are these relevant in the mapping context? > Yes. That's how this whole thread started. Somebody wanting to map places where coaches s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 23:46, brad wrote: > I think it's valid tag for a campsite, I think it can be, on larger camp sites, which have several washing machines in a dedicated building. It's not much different than any other self service coin operated laundry. > Yes and no. Many camp sites c

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 23:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Only knowing Australian buses / coaches, I'm not sure if this applies > world-wide, but a major distinction between the two here, is that a coach > has a toilet on board, while a bus doesn't. > Wow! You have posh coaches there! More ser

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > is "motorcar" a term that is common in British English? > Not much. > > How do you tag the generic bus class in Britain? > Is there such a thing? There are buses which operate to a timetable and anyone may board or alight at specifi

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 15:30, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:24 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > Indeed. All we can try to do is sort it all out. To do that, we need > to know what we > > are talking about. I think we can ignore whatever it was the original > p

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 13:34, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > In the US (yes, I *know* that the language of OSM tagging is en-uk, > but I'm not a native speaker of the UK variant!) the term for those > would be 'charter[ed] bus'. > We have chartered transport too. But chartered coaches are in a differen

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 07:13, Jo wrote: > What about long_distance_bus, if you don't like coach? motorbus doesn't > really convey much information. All buses we are talking about have a motor. > Indeed. Also, it's not a term I've encountered very often (if at all) in British English. > When I

Re: [Tagging] Roman roads - was Re: "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I see. Up to now, I only have mapped roads (or fragments) that were > clearly original (or well arranged so that the layman would believe they > were original), particularly with ancient paving (but maybe not in the > original configura

Re: [Tagging] Roman roads - was Re: "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 19:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > yes, or historic=road with historic:civilization=ancient_roman > > I’ve used both variants in the past but just had a second thought: is this > about roads that are still with the original paving or also applicable to > roads that were

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 16:49, Ruben wrote: > > There has been discussion about this on the forum: > https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66456 > > I had drafted a (in retrospect not perfect) proposal as well: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Low_waste_and_zero_w

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 16:27, Janko Mihelić wrote: So maybe the right way is to go case by case, and see how to deal with > them. > Sounds like a plan. If you find something exceptional, we'll try to figure out what to do with it. For example, a lot of rails and motorways have all ways tagged

Re: [Tagging] "not:brand" to mark a shop that isn't part of a chain?

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 08:17, Jez Nicholson wrote: > +1 for the not: namespace. > +1 It may be applicable to other tags on objects which are prone to misidentification and which are not better handled by lifestyle prefixes. Where an object is no longer used as an X (or used for anything else n

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 19:47, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:58, Paul Allen wrote: > > > if there is a property shared by all members of a group then it MUST be > marked on > > the group ALONE and not also on individual members. > > This is not the

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 17:31, Janko Mihelić wrote: My idea was to expand the general "part:wikidata=*" to more specific tags. > For example, give all peaks and ridges of a mountain the > mountain:wikidata=* tag, instead of part:wikidata=*. Part is just the > first, nondescript step. If we decide

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:45, Janko Mihelić wrote: One problem with the current system is that if you click one of those > dwarfs in OSM, and see it's linked to an object in wikidata, you have no > way of seeing if that is the whole wikidata object, or just a part of that > object, unless you dow

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 11:04, Antoine Jaury via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > marc marc wrote: > > "well in this case, this shop isn't a bulk_purchase=yes shop > bulk_purchase=* in osm mean that you can BUY item in bulk > not that the shop has a stock of product that he packs for y

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 22:26, Janko Mihelić wrote: > sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 20:24 Mateusz Konieczny > napisao je: > >> can you give specific example of case >> where part:wikidata would be better >> than wikidata? >> > > The classic example is a street. Streets are one of those objects in OSM > wh

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 20:18, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > 11 Sep 2019, 21:48 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:43, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > > It gets tricky where wikidata has a > single object for things like > lake and surrounding wetlands > > > Then the wikidata

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:43, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > It gets tricky where wikidata has a > single object for things like > lake and surrounding wetlands > Then the wikidata item is for the wetlands, which happen to have a lake within them. Map the wetlands and add the wikidata tag to it.

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:35, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > One of the issues I frequently observed is that mappers keep trying to add > a wikidata=... tag even when there is no perfect match. Having a > part:wikidata or a similar tag would help those mappers - indicating that > there is no perfect 1:1

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 18:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >: > > to give a practical example: > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3734793 > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1368377 > > How should these be linked t

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:31, Janko Mihelić wrote: > The rule I'm trying to implement, "A Wikidata item cannot be connected to > more than one OSM item", might also be interpreted as a DRY rule. But I'm > at least proposing part:wikidata, so we can have the benefits of DRY, as > well as easiness

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am So., 8. Sept. 2019 um 15:13 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >: > >> Good idea. A better idea might be to add it to the description, since it >> is information that >> may be useful to non-mappers: data consumers m

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:31, Philip Barnes wrote: > > The description here describes coaches, which are more comfortable than > buses and are used for long distances. In French for example this would be > the difference between Autocar and Autobus. > That's one end of the spectrum. I'm not su

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 10:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 04:39 Uhr schrieb Leif Rasmussen < > 354...@gmail.com>: > > if both can stop, it is not a tourist bus stop but a regular bus stop > where coaches can stop. I have difficulties imagining it, but I would not > ex

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >